Manx financial scam: Chinese Filipino Boilerhouse

[Sceptic]

1 hour ago, manxkinho said:

At least the GSC picked up on it. After about two months after they were arrested….

And only after they clearly undertook hardly any due diligence to issue a license so recently in the first place. Absolutely shocking. They must be tripping over their big shoes daily at the GSC.

[manxkinho]

3 hours ago, Sceptic said:

And only after they clearly undertook hardly any due diligence to issue a license so recently in the first place. Absolutely shocking. They must be tripping over their big shoes daily at the GSC.

I did some digging at the companies registry and a local CSP was essentially hiding who the beneficial owner was. I suspect there’s more to come on this one….

[Sceptic]

9 hours ago, manxkinho said:

I did some digging at the companies registry and a local CSP was essentially hiding who the beneficial owner was. I suspect there’s more to come on this one….

As I understand it the regulator that actually does its job is looking at a fine on the beneficial owner register aspect. I suppose someone actually should do something rather than just take the easy option that the GSC always does and penalizes nobody. 

[Gladys]

10 hours ago, manxkinho said:

I did some digging at the companies registry and a local CSP was essentially hiding who the beneficial owner was. I suspect there’s more to come on this one….

Genuine question, but how can you determine that from the registry? 

[When Skies are Grey V2]

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

Genuine question, but how can you determine that from the registry? 

good point....the post sounded a bit like that loony on here who said she was tracking people through their IP addresses!! 

[Sceptic]

3 hours ago, Gladys said:

Genuine question, but how can you determine that from the registry? 

To clarify the story I have heard. When the filings were checked, presumably by the FSA, the UBO information filed might not have aligned with information supplied to the GSC. Therefore there are now believed to be issues to do with the FSA and what was, or wasn’t, originally on the register. All rumour or speculation at this stage. But again it will only be the FSA issuing any fines as the default action of the GSC is simply to seek to make awkward or embarrassing situations go away by revoking licenses and not actually doing anything. 

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, Sceptic said:

To clarify the story I have heard. When the filings were checked, presumably by the FSA, the UBO information filed might not have aligned with information supplied to the GSC. Therefore there are now believed to be issues to do with the FSA and what was, or wasn’t, originally on the register. All rumour or speculation at this stage. But again it will only be the FSA issuing any fines as the default action of the GSC is simply to seek to make awkward or embarrassing situations go away by revoking licenses and not actually doing anything. 

But are you required to file UBO info at the registry?  That is what all the fuss is about, that we don't have a public UBO register. 

[The Phantom]

3 minutes ago, Gladys said:

But are you required to file UBO info at the registry?  That is what all the fuss is about, that we don't have a public UBO register. 

Yeah the 'nominated officer' of the company is supposed to file info on the UBO to the Registry.  Not public and only accessible by law enforcement, investigations etc.  Could be that in light of the news report mentioning the owner, it's become evident that this info might not line up with what was on file at the Registry. 

Would have to be inside info to crop up.  It's 100% not public. 

Some of their rules are pretty weird though.  e.g. if it's a Trust owning the shares, the Trustee is considered the UBO not the actual real client.  Possible it could have been a genuine mistake along these lines, as I've never thought that made sense. 

[Sceptic]

16 minutes ago, Gladys said:

But are you required to file UBO info at the registry?  That is what all the fuss is about, that we don't have a public UBO register. 

If doesn’t have to be a public register for the FSA or the FIU to see what’s on it does It? The nominated officer still has to file who the UBO is with the registry.

[Lost Login]

22 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

Some of their rules are pretty weird though.  e.g. if it's a Trust owning the shares, the Trustee is considered the UBO not the actual real client.  

Not at all weird if you understand trusts and trust law. If you are saying the trust is not the real client you are effectively saying it is a sham.

The party reportable for a trust is generally the party with the power to change the trustee. In most trusts that is a protector or the current trustee. Similar to shareholders having the power to change directors. The logic behind being that if you have the power to change the trustee, directors you have the power to change to a party that will do your bidding. 

There are plenty of cases where the power to change trustee rests with the current trustee and current trustees have refused to resign. The beneficiaries could go to court over the matter but it is expensive and the court might agree not with the request.

[Gladys]

48 minutes ago, Sceptic said:

If doesn’t have to be a public register for the FSA or the FIU to see what’s on it does It? The nominated officer still has to file who the UBO is with the registry.

No, I get that, but how does a search of the registry lead anyone to conclude the identity of the UBO has been hidden? 

[The Phantom]

3 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

Not at all weird if you understand trusts and trust law. If you are saying the trust is not the real client you are effectively saying it is a sham.

The party reportable for a trust is generally the party with the power to change the trustee. In most trusts that is a protector or the current trustee. Similar to shareholders having the power to change directors. The logic behind being that if you have the power to change the trustee, directors you have the power to change to a party that will do your bidding. 

There are plenty of cases where the power to change trustee rests with the current trustee and current trustees have refused to resign. The beneficiaries could go to court over the matter but it is expensive and the court might agree not with the request.

I'm quite familiar with Trust law and shams thanks.

It's how you define the beneficial owner.  Does the Trustee (or protector) benefit from the company?  No; that's the whole point of a Trust/Trustee - to hold assets on behalf of, or for the benefit of someone else. 

It might even be the shareholder of the Corporate Trustee that the Registry deems the BO.  I'd have to look into it, but suffice to say, it was weird. 

Banks don't accept the Trustee or Protector is the UBO of a Trust.  It's either the Settlor and/or the Beneficiaries. 

 

[Lost Login]

1 hour ago, The Phantom said:

I'm quite familiar with Trust law and shams thanks.

It's how you define the beneficial owner.  Does the Trustee (or protector) benefit from the company?  No; that's the whole point of a Trust/Trustee - to hold assets on behalf of, or for the benefit of someone else. 

It might even be the shareholder of the Corporate Trustee that the Registry deems the BO.  I'd have to look into it, but suffice to say, it was weird. 

Banks don't accept the Trustee or Protector is the UBO of a Trust.  It's either the Settlor and/or the Beneficiaries. 

 

A trust should not be thought of having a UBO unless it is an interest in possession type trust. Trying to treat a discretionary trust as equivalent of a company is why the banks, regulators etc do not appear to understand trusts. A discretionary trust should be thought as having as a UBO 

A trustee has a trust where the named settlor has died, the economic settlor is divorced and remarried and he, his ex wife and his issue are beneficiaries of the trust. The economic settlor wants a change in trustee to somebody who will basically do his bidding, the other adult beneficiaries do not want this. Each side has several minors.

Who do you say is the UBO? 

 

[The Phantom]

18 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

A trust should not be thought of having a UBO unless it is an interest in possession type trust. Trying to treat a discretionary trust as equivalent of a company is why the banks, regulators etc do not appear to understand trusts. A discretionary trust should be thought as having as a UBO 

A trustee has a trust where the named settlor has died, the economic settlor is divorced and remarried and he, his ex wife and his issue are beneficiaries of the trust. The economic settlor wants a change in trustee to somebody who will basically do his bidding, the other adult beneficiaries do not want this. Each side has several minors.

Who do you say is the UBO? 

 

Someone who stands to benefit from the Trust.  Those people called beneficiaries?  Although there should really be a separate designation for people that 'could' benefit from the Trust when it comes to designating the UBO of a discretionary trust.  Bearing in mind beneficiaries of a Trust might not even know they are, or could be a class. 

Really it should be the person who directs the Trustee.  We all know there is someone there that does this. 

It's not perfect but it certainly shouldn't be the Trustee or Protector, who do not stand to benefit from the Trust other than collecting professional fees. 

As I said, a Trustee is defined as 'someone who holds/administers assets for the benefit of a third party.'

Edited December 10, 2024 by The Phantom

[Gladys]

That is exactly why discretionary trusts are used, no one has an absolute entitlement to the assets.